Hello and thank you for visiting AikiWeb, the
world's most active online Aikido community! This site is home to
over 22,000 aikido practitioners from around the world and covers a
wide range of aikido topics including techniques, philosophy, history,
humor, beginner issues, the marketplace, and more.

If you wish to join in the discussions or use the other advanced
features available, you will need to register first. Registration is
absolutely free and takes only a few minutes to complete so sign up today!

With all due respect, it seems that you misunderstand the nature of the counter-arguments you claim to have addressed.

One could fairly credit you with having made an interesting circumstantial case on the basis of carefully selected quotes organized on the basis of a number of inferences you have made from your personal training experiences.That is something very different from your apparent belief that you have made a rock-solid case based on hard evidence. You find your argument compelling. Fine. That still doesn't make it rock-solid.

What I mean by "hard evidence" is a confirmation of your case by an individual who was familiar with Ueshiba's practices -- as both a private individual and as a semi-private or public teacher/exemplar of his art, and/or by textual evidence with a clear provenance.

One can entirely accept the argument that any number of people who were students of students of Morihei Ueshiba, Kisshomaru Ueshiba, or Horikawa Kodo, or (fill in the blank) find something valuable in the mode of practice you favor without accepting the assertion that either the mode (or precise goal) of your practice is identical to that of Morihei Ueshiba.

In a koryu context, if a school had "lost" such material from its core curriculum (let's call that the "honden") and subsequently "re-imported" the material from some other school that had somehow gotten hold of and maintained that body of instruction, unless there was clear documentation (which requires either unequivocal textual evidence or confirmation by someone familiar with the original material as-taught, or both) that each and every piece of the re-imported material was identical in sequence and detail the original, the material would have to be reclassified as "outside transmission" or "revived transmission." And the final decision would rest with an individual who was appropriately trained and licensed to do so. It would would never be treated as part of the core teachings faithfully transmitted through an unbroken sequence of exponents.

It's not a matter of whether the material is good stuff, is related in some significant part to some good stuff that was part of the school three-quarters of a century or a century ago, or if the people working the material are good people.

It's a matter of whether there is sufficient documentary evidence and direct first hand knowledge to state, unequivocally with no missing links in the chain of argument requiring supposition or inference, that "this" is exactly "that," whatever this and that may be.

Yes, you can say (not unreasonably) that there's no way anyone can know whether or not "this" is good stuff, or useful stuff, without experiencing it. That makes perfect sense. But that is a fundamentally different assertion than the claim that "this IP/IS practice,the aiki body it develops, and whatever arises from that is nothing more or less than Ueshiba's aiki."

Frankly, the only way I see to closer to proving or disproving that claim is for some intrepid researchers currently in Japan to follow up some of the research suggestions Ellis has repeatedly made. There are individuals still alive and related schools extant which might be able to provide further evidence to confirm your informed speculations.

But absent such evidence, your assertions remain informed speculations. While there is value in informed speculation, there is a valid distinction between informed speculation and proven fact. My sense is that the frustration of your interlocutors turns directly on what they see as your (relentless) refusal to acknowledge that this is a meaningful distinction.

None of this goes to the additional questions of whether or not Ueshiba's training methods, philosophical views, religious views and practices, political or soteriological goals changed over time, or to the question of whether what attracts people to the art is simply the fundamental physical ability to manifest rootedness, and generate uncommon power by which the movement of others might be directed, or some other, perhaps less tangible feature. My experience is that most aikido practitioners have some measure of both, but the proportion varies widely from individual to individual and the spectrum is a broad one. Very few are interesting in a strictly physical approach, even a highly nuanced physical approach like those found in the various IP/IS models available.

To return this to the OP. "Awase" can be accomplished any number of ways. Would "aiki" as a distinct principle be useful in accomplishing "awase?" Sure. Is it necessary? Not remotely. Is it desirable? De gustibus non est disputadam!

If you don't like what's on the menu, there's no need to go in the restaurant and no need to fuss at the people who do like what's on the menu. It may be quite enough to say (as F. Scott Fitzgerald once paraphrased Lincoln) : "If you like this sort of thing, this, possibly, is the sort of thing you'll like."

That formulation is well within the Confucian edict "To go too far is as bad as to fall short."

Mindful that this guidance is well within the broad sweep of traditional East Asian shared culture with which Ueshiba M. was raised and to which he was devoted, yet fearful that it is already far too late in this reply to even say such a thing, I will close in the hope that all of the above sparks more light than heat.

Best,

Fred

Hello Fred,

With respect, I do understand the nature of the counter arguments. Let me sum it up:

People who have provided no research, no evidence, no far ranging experiences telling me I am wrong in regards to Ueshiba's aiki. Now, these people point to a student of a student of Ueshiba for proof. I point to a student of a student of Ueshiba. Who trumps whom? Beyond the fact that each of us is merely pointing at external sources, in essence, these people absolutely must know what aiki is to emphatically state that I do not know what it is.

As you state, "It's a matter of whether there is sufficient documentary evidence and direct first hand knowledge to state, unequivocally with no missing links in the chain of argument requiring supposition or inference, that "this" is exactly "that," whatever this and that may be."

Let's apply that logic to the "counter arguments" shall we? Except, no one has, no one will, no one cares to. Rather, it is taken unequivocally that those with "counter arguments" know absolutely the knowledge to grant all that I do not know.

Let's go back to Ueshiba. Can these people replicate his skills? No. Can they replicate his knowledge of ancient martial concepts? No. Can they prove his training? No. Can they prove his practices? No. Which sort of puts us all on equal footing, no? What, then, gives them the foundation to state so emphatically that I am wrong? If we apply your logic to their arguments, they fall far short.

So, let's go back to the research and the experiences. I have done the research. They haven't. I have about 20 years of aikido training. I'm sure they do, too. I've trained with a variety of aikido shihan. I'm sure they have, too. I've trained with the IP/aiki exponents. They haven't.

Who, then, is on solid ground? And who is on marshy ground?

And this is all just going over what I have done. Shall we toss in Marc Abrams, Chris Li, Greg Steckel, Rob Liberti, etc? All who have greater experiences with students of students of the founder?

Shall we toss in the interviews with the students of the founder themselves who stated they didn't know what he was doing or how he did it? With Kono who said everyone was doing everything different? With Pranin stating that Ueshiba was rarely at Tokyo hombu, let alone teaching there. Etc, etc, etc.

As to the koryu example, let's apply it to aikido. We have several branches from Sokaku Takeda, passing on aiki. There were peers with similar training methods. There are exact training exercises between aikido and daito ryu in regards to training aiki. Where is the broken transmission? Maybe it is that people just didn't know it was there and that these people are arguing from a basis of ignorance rather than supported research? Except that no one wants to apply the same logic to their "counter arguments".

So, it's fine for someone to state unequivocally that awase is the principle of aiki and is what makes aikido unique, in an unsupported manner, but not okay when I refute it backed by research, Ueshiba's own words, and direct experience? Really? Can we use your logic to ask them to support their words with "rock-solid" evidence that I'm asking to provide? Show me Ueshiba's own words that supports their case. Show me the experience they have with those who can do what Ueshiba did that supports their case.

Again, I stand by my first sentence in that post. It has proven true time and time again.

When all logic, research, evidence, and truth fails, talk about character or belabor the format.

With respect, I do understand the nature of the counter arguments. Let me sum it up:

People who have provided no research, no evidence, no far ranging experiences telling me I am wrong in regards to Ueshiba's aiki. Now, these people point to a student of a student of Ueshiba for proof. I point to a student of a student of Ueshiba. Who trumps whom? Beyond the fact that each of us is merely pointing at external sources, in essence, these people absolutely must know what aiki is to emphatically state that I do not know what it is. .

This is a misunderstanding of the nature of the burden of proof of the type that the analogy of Russell's teapot was developed to address. In short, it is not necessary for a skeptic to disprove your assertion. It is necessary for you to prove it (as distinct from provide a suggestive, but ultimately incomplete and inconclusive assemblage of evidence that tends to support your argument). You have neither proved your theory nor disproved the counterarguments.

The counterarguments are, for the most part, not bald assertions that you are wrong. They are either alternative theories which may or may not address particulars of your theory, or specific assertions that your theory has holes of both evidence and method in your argument sufficiently large that it remains unproven. These leave you with the option of showing the alternative theories to be false or unlikely in the first case, and of filling in the holes of evidence and method.

Like the other individuals you name in your post, neither you nor I witnessed or have hands-on experience with the skills of Ueshiba Morihei, which means that any argument about the precise nature of those skills is either based on videotape, written description, or hearsay. In the first case, different viewers may come to differing conclusions -- and there are also technical issues like film transfer rates etc. In the second and third cases, both written accounts and hearsay need to be exposed to a number of filters: Who wrote/said this? Who was the reader/listener? What was the context of the statement? What was the agenda of the speaker? These are all legitimate questions that may cause us to give more or less credit to various statements being introduced as evidence.

You cite a number of comparatively exerienced people who find utility in this work and who see a clear continuity between their understanding of Ueshiba's aikido and what they develop in this kind of work. That's useful information. It is also useful information to be told by comparatively experienced people that there is clear continuity between Systema and Ueshiba's aikido, or Contact Improv and Aikido, or verbal conflict de-escalation techniques and Ueshiba's aikido, or Non-Violent Communication and Ueshiba's aikido. Continuity is not identity. Congruity is not identity. Complementarity is not identity. Relationship is not identity. Sydney Bechet is not Louis Armstrong.

The nature of the argument in favor of your theory is like that used in a civil trial -- you are arguing that the "preponderance of the evidence" is on your side and your disputants don't have a similar weight of evidence in favor of their counter-arguments, therefore they should accept your argument.

This is akin to saying: "you can't prove your theory so you must accept mine." What you're failing to acknowledge is that continued skepticism in the face of incomplete information is not only a reasonable position, but may be the soundest position of all.

The above goes to the basic principles of theory formation and evaluation, basic concepts of relatedness and identity, theory falsification and its implications, and the need to examine evidence critically, because this is where the fundamental problem with both your theory and your presentation of your theory appear to lie, based on your summary above. One needn't go beyond that point to identify the structural issues with your argument and your understanding of what it means to "prove" something.

On the other hand, if you could just lighten up a little bit and acknowledge that while you haven't proved your case, rather more gently point out that you still have a circumstantial and suggestive case which is worthy of further examination and archaeology, you might have a defensible position.

This is a misunderstanding of the nature of the burden of proof of the type that the analogy of Russell's teapot was developed to address. In short, it is not necessary for a skeptic to disprove your assertion. It is necessary for you to prove it (as distinct from provide a suggestive, but ultimately incomplete and inconclusive assemblage of evidence that tends to support your argument). You have neither proved your theory nor disproved the counterarguments.

The counterarguments are, for the most part, not bald assertions that you are wrong. They are either alternative theories which may or may not address particulars of your theory, or specific assertions that your theory has holes of both evidence and method in your argument sufficiently large that it remains unproven. These leave you with the option of showing the alternative theories to be false or unlikely in the first case, and of filling in the holes of evidence and method.

Like the other individuals you name in your post, neither you nor I witnessed or have hands-on experience with the skills of Ueshiba Morihei, which means that any argument about the precise nature of those skills is either based on videotape, written description, or hearsay. In the first case, different viewers may come to differing conclusions -- and there are also technical issues like film transfer rates etc. In the second and third cases, both written accounts and hearsay need to be exposed to a number of filters: Who wrote/said this? Who was the reader/listener? What was the context of the statement? What was the agenda of the speaker? These are all legitimate questions that may cause us to give more or less credit to various statements being introduced as evidence.

You cite a number of comparatively exerienced people who find utility in this work and who see a clear continuity between their understanding of Ueshiba's aikido and what they develop in this kind of work. That's useful information. It is also useful information to be told by comparatively experienced people that there is clear continuity between Systema and Ueshiba's aikido, or Contact Improv and Aikido, or verbal conflict de-escalation techniques and Ueshiba's aikido, or Non-Violent Communication and Ueshiba's aikido. Continuity is not identity. Congruity is not identity. Complementarity is not identity. Relationship is not identity. Sydney Bechet is not Louis Armstrong.

The nature of the argument in favor of your theory is like that used in a civil trial -- you are arguing that the "preponderance of the evidence" is on your side and your disputants don't have a similar weight of evidence in favor of their counter-arguments, therefore they should accept your argument.

This is akin to saying: "you can't prove your theory so you must accept mine." What you're failing to acknowledge is that continued skepticism in the face of incomplete information is not only a reasonable position, but may be the soundest position of all.

The above goes to the basic principles of theory formation and evaluation, basic concepts of relatedness and identity, theory falsification and its implications, and the need to examine evidence critically, because this is where the fundamental problem with both your theory and your presentation of your theory appear to lie, based on your summary above. One needn't go beyond that point to identify the structural issues with your argument and your understanding of what it means to "prove" something.

On the other hand, if you could just lighten up a little bit and acknowledge that while you haven't proved your case, rather more gently point out that you still have a circumstantial and suggestive case which is worthy of further examination and archaeology, you might have a defensible position.

Best,

Fred

Yeah, What he said.

Eric

Last edited by Eric Winters : 10-19-2012 at 05:07 PM.
Reason: The happy face did not post

This is a misunderstanding of the nature of the burden of proof of the type that the analogy of Russell's teapot was developed to address. In short, it is not necessary for a skeptic to disprove your assertion. It is necessary for you to prove it (as distinct from provide a suggestive, but ultimately incomplete and inconclusive assemblage of evidence that tends to support your argument). You have neither proved your theory nor disproved the counterarguments.

The counterarguments are, for the most part, not bald assertions that you are wrong. They are either alternative theories which may or may not address particulars of your theory, or specific assertions that your theory has holes of both evidence and method in your argument sufficiently large that it remains unproven. These leave you with the option of showing the alternative theories to be false or unlikely in the first case, and of filling in the holes of evidence and method.

Like the other individuals you name in your post, neither you nor I witnessed or have hands-on experience with the skills of Ueshiba Morihei, which means that any argument about the precise nature of those skills is either based on videotape, written description, or hearsay. In the first case, different viewers may come to differing conclusions -- and there are also technical issues like film transfer rates etc. In the second and third cases, both written accounts and hearsay need to be exposed to a number of filters: Who wrote/said this? Who was the reader/listener? What was the context of the statement? What was the agenda of the speaker? These are all legitimate questions that may cause us to give more or less credit to various statements being introduced as evidence.

You cite a number of comparatively exerienced people who find utility in this work and who see a clear continuity between their understanding of Ueshiba's aikido and what they develop in this kind of work. That's useful information. It is also useful information to be told by comparatively experienced people that there is clear continuity between Systema and Ueshiba's aikido, or Contact Improv and Aikido, or verbal conflict de-escalation techniques and Ueshiba's aikido, or Non-Violent Communication and Ueshiba's aikido. Continuity is not identity. Congruity is not identity. Complementarity is not identity. Relationship is not identity. Sydney Bechet is not Louis Armstrong.

The nature of the argument in favor of your theory is like that used in a civil trial -- you are arguing that the "preponderance of the evidence" is on your side and your disputants don't have a similar weight of evidence in favor of their counter-arguments, therefore they should accept your argument.

This is akin to saying: "you can't prove your theory so you must accept mine." What you're failing to acknowledge is that continued skepticism in the face of incomplete information is not only a reasonable position, but may be the soundest position of all.

The above goes to the basic principles of theory formation and evaluation, basic concepts of relatedness and identity, theory falsification and its implications, and the need to examine evidence critically, because this is where the fundamental problem with both your theory and your presentation of your theory appear to lie, based on your summary above. One needn't go beyond that point to identify the structural issues with your argument and your understanding of what it means to "prove" something.

On the other hand, if you could just lighten up a little bit and acknowledge that while you haven't proved your case, rather more gently point out that you still have a circumstantial and suggestive case which is worthy of further examination and archaeology, you might have a defensible position.

Best,

Fred

So Mark would have been better off saying:

"'The founder of AIKIDO, Morihei Ueshiba O-sensei, spent many years adapting techniques from Daito-Ryu Jujitsu and other martial arts to embody the principle of AWASE.'

I am skeptical that this is the case, where is your proof?"

Isn't this sort of what he's done, albeit with including his argument for what he considers to be the primary principle (aiki)?

But I think that the problem some people have with Dan and Mark is that they give no "How To's" and claim IHTBF (Reasonable) and Dan also does not want to give to much verbal info because he does not want the unskilled boobs to sound like the know stuff (can't remember were that post is). So the only thing that seems to come out into the posts sounds like "nobody in aikido understands aikido and everybody that does Aikido sucks unless they train with Dan."

Now they may or may not think that who knows, but it sure does seem like it from the posts.

Otherwise, IMHO what they are doing is essential for great aikido or any other movement activity you chose to do.

But I think that the problem some people have with Dan and Mark is that they give no "How To's" and claim IHTBF (Reasonable) and Dan also does not want to give to much verbal info because he does not want the unskilled boobs to sound like the know stuff (can't remember were that post is). So the only thing that seems to come out into the posts sounds like "nobody in aikido understands aikido and everybody that does Aikido sucks unless they train with Dan."

Now they may or may not think that who knows, but it sure does seem like it from the posts.

Otherwise, IMHO what they are doing is essential for great aikido or any other movement activity you chose to do.

Best,

Eric

Eric:

You could not be farther from the truth. Dan gives EXPLICIT "how to's" in the clearest, sequential manner than any other person I have ever trained with. The sheer number of people who have attended one of his seminars can clearly attest to this. Knock yourself out and test your own hypothesis out. Who knows, you might later be offering an apology or retraction of this belief.

As to the larger issue of the intellectual debate that some would like to place this topic in....... Go Fish! You can talk until the dawn of a new era and nothing, nothing with have changed. Those who are pursuing this type of IP work are changing. Those left wasting their precious moments in useless, intellectual debates about a tangible product, will keep on in the direction that they are heading in. People who train with people from each group will very quickly understand reality.

Mark has not only produced more historical context than anyone else posting, but he is also doing the tangible work necessary for change. I give him a lot of credit for continually placing this information out there so others can make their feckless attacks on his research. Personally, I find it more rewarding to do the work and leave these debates to others.

With respect, I do understand the nature of the counter arguments. Let me sum it up:

People who have provided no research, no evidence, no far ranging experiences telling me I am wrong in regards to Ueshiba's aiki.

Mark, please understand that it was not about your concept of "Osensei's Aiki". You were told you were wrong about claiming David Alexander's position was Awase = Aiki and you actually were wrong about that and Aikido not being adapted (in addition to Daito Ryu) from other martial arts. You were given evidence on Kashima Shinto Ryu for a start. Here's some more:

Shortly after I first raised these questions, in 1978 or `79, I visited the dojo of the late Koichiro Yoshikawa, 64th headmaster of the Kashima Shinto-ryu. He very graciously answered many questions about the history and techniques of the ryu. Moreover, he showed me a registry of the people who had entered the Kashima Shinto-ryu and performed keppan (lit., "blood seal," signing the enrollment register and sealing it with one's own blood as an earnest of one's sincerity and serious intent) dating from before World War II. Guess what, sports fans? One of the names in the register was that of Morihei Ueshiba, along with that of Zenzaburo Akazawa, his deshi. I was told that a number of people at the Kobukan, including Ueshiba, studied for a period of several years. Once again, when I brought up the subject of Kashima Shinto-ryu and its influence on aikido, several aikido people, including one of the most senior instructors at the Aikikai, assured me I was mistaken. The only rejoinder I could make was that: a) I can read, and b) I saw the register with my own eyes (one can dispute with one's teachers and seniors in English without seeming impertinent, but it's almost impossible to do so in a Japanese context). Later, I mentioned all of this to Stan Pranin, publisher of Aiki News, and he has since established this and many other hitherto previously unpublished details of Morihei Ueshiba's training in the classical martial arts and the influence of the koryu upon the development of modern aikido. A great deal more work, however, remains to be done.

And

Quote:

The omote no tachi is comprised of twelve techniques performed with straight bokuto, as though in armor. The first of these, ichi no tachi, is almost identical to an exercise of the same name taught by Morihiro Saito. Ni no tachi of Kashima Shinto-ryu bears several elements in common with Saito's training sequence, as does san no tachi, but there are a number of differences as well.

Now, these people point to a student of a student of Ueshiba for proof. I point to a student of a student of Ueshiba. Who trumps whom? Beyond the fact that each of us is merely pointing at external sources, in essence, these people absolutely must know what aiki is to emphatically state that I do not know what it is.

Proof of what? Who is saying you don't know what Aiki is? Saying or implying that is off the original topic and meaningless if someone hasn't trained with you. That goes both ways. Even if Alexander Sensei had actually said Awase = Aiki, we don't know how the description applies in practice and the word "Awase" is so broad, you'd have to look into the training methodology and ideally get hold of people to find out.

Quote:

Mark Murray wrote:

Quote:

The founder of AIKIDO, Morihei Ueshiba O-sensei, spent many years adapting techniques from Daito-Ryu Jujitsu and other martial arts to embody the principle of AWASE.

As far as I know, this is an unsupported idea. There idea that Ueshiba's aikido came from "other martial arts" is rather, well, wrong.

For my part at least, I have been addressing your original post throughout. Also FWIW I think you probably do know what Aiki is.

Quote:

Mark Murray wrote:

Let's go back to Ueshiba. Can these people replicate his skills? No. Can they replicate his knowledge of ancient martial concepts? No. Can they prove his training? No. Can they prove his practices? No. Which sort of puts us all on equal footing, no? What, then, gives them the foundation to state so emphatically that I am wrong? If we apply your logic to their arguments, they fall far short.

So, let's go back to the research and the experiences. I have done the research. They haven't. I have about 20 years of aikido training. I'm sure they do, too. I've trained with a variety of aikido shihan. I'm sure they have, too. I've trained with the IP/aiki exponents. They haven't.

Why does anyone have to be able to replicate Osensei's skills just to point out that David Alexander didn't say Awase = Aiki and that Aikido actually does have some influence from arts other than Daito Ryu? And these are a lot of assumptions about "these people".

Quote:

Mark Murray wrote:

Shall we toss in the interviews with the students of the founder themselves who stated they didn't know what he was doing or how he did it? With Kono who said everyone was doing everything different? With Pranin stating that Ueshiba was rarely at Tokyo hombu, let alone teaching there. Etc, etc, etc.

Along with David Alexander, Stanley Pranin is also a student of Saito Sensei from the 70's. The evidence from Kono and Osensei rarely being in the Hombu is usually cited to authenticate the aikido in Iwama.

Quote:

Mark Murray wrote:

So, it's fine for someone to state unequivocally that awase is the principle of aiki and is what makes aikido unique, in an unsupported manner, but not okay when I refute it backed by research, Ueshiba's own words, and direct experience?

Alexander Sensei wrote this article ages ago and has re-posted it in VoE. It doesn't come with the answers to your present-day questions, so we have to ask and discuss things. You have been given research and supporting evidence. Please acknowledge or discredit it and we can move on.

You can talk until the dawn of a new era and nothing, nothing with have changed. Those who are pursuing this type of IP work are changing. Those left wasting their precious moments in useless, intellectual debates about a tangible product, will keep on in the direction that they are heading in. People who train with people from each group will very quickly understand reality.

Hello Marc,

As with the other slightly-differently-spelled Mark, I think you are making assumptions.

Quote:

Marc Abrams wrote:

Mark has not only produced more historical context than anyone else posting, but he is also doing the tangible work necessary for change. I give him a lot of credit for continually placing this information out there so others can make their feckless attacks on his research. Personally, I find it more rewarding to do the work and leave these debates to others.

I also think Mark has done some valuable research. I've cited it before myself.

As with the other slightly-differently-spelled Mark, I think you are making assumptions.

I also think Mark has done some valuable research. I've cited it before myself.

Carl

Carl:

We are telic beings. We always make assumptions. Our assumptions in this arena are only as good as they can be realized through the tangible end-products of our martial arts training, thinking, etc.... When we can all be in a room together and test our theories out in a collegial manner, we can make some real headway in our training (theories, applications, etc.). Otherwise, we are left with our assumtions (Assume= "Ass" out of "U" and "Me").

Shortly after I first raised these questions, in 1978 or `79, I visited the dojo of the late Koichiro Yoshikawa, 64th headmaster of the Kashima Shinto-ryu. He very graciously answered many questions about the history and techniques of the ryu. Moreover, he showed me a registry of the people who had entered the Kashima Shinto-ryu and performed keppan (lit., "blood seal," signing the enrollment register and sealing it with one's own blood as an earnest of one's sincerity and serious intent) dating from before World War II. Guess what, sports fans? One of the names in the register was that of Morihei Ueshiba, along with that of Zenzaburo Akazawa, his deshi. I was told that a number of people at the Kobukan, including Ueshiba, studied for a period of several years. Once again, when I brought up the subject of Kashima Shinto-ryu and its influence on aikido, several aikido people, including one of the most senior instructors at the Aikikai, assured me I was mistaken. The only rejoinder I could make was that: a) I can read, and b) I saw the register with my own eyes (one can dispute with one's teachers and seniors in English without seeming impertinent, but it's almost impossible to do so in a Japanese context).

Carl
Ueshiba never studied KSR. He wanted his students to study while he watched. The soke made him take keppan, just to be allowed to watch. Most famous were him telling his students something like he would never do this or that...like KSR. "In Aiki we do it this way." There are several quotes, I just don't have access to my files right now.

Quote:

Later, I mentioned all of this to Stan Pranin, publisher of Aiki News, and he has since established this and many other hitherto previously unpublished details of Morihei Ueshiba's training in the classical martial arts and the influence of the koryu upon the development of modern aikido. A great deal more work, however, remains to be done.

Not true either.
Stan (right here in his interview with Jun) Relegates Ueshiba's training to a short study under a 17 year old Judo shodan his dad hired, part time study over a few years time, traveling to a Yagyu Shingan dojo (something like 5 hours away) part time on weekends. and......
23 years in Daito ryu.

You could not be farther from the truth. Dan gives EXPLICIT "how to's" in the clearest, sequential manner than any other person I have ever trained with. The sheer number of people who have attended one of his seminars can clearly attest to this. Knock yourself out and test your own hypothesis out. Who knows, you might later be offering an apology or retraction of this belief.

As to the larger issue of the intellectual debate that some would like to place this topic in....... Go Fish! You can talk until the dawn of a new era and nothing, nothing with have changed. Those who are pursuing this type of IP work are changing. Those left wasting their precious moments in useless, intellectual debates about a tangible product, will keep on in the direction that they are heading in. People who train with people from each group will very quickly understand reality.

Mark has not only produced more historical context than anyone else posting, but he is also doing the tangible work necessary for change. I give him a lot of credit for continually placing this information out there so others can make their feckless attacks on his research. Personally, I find it more rewarding to do the work and leave these debates to others.

Good Luck!

Marc Abrams

Hi Mark,

Sorry I did not make myself clear. I meant he doesn't give much verbal info online and I actually believe he can deliver the goods. I myself train with Toby Threadgill and know what I believe Aiki feels like. I really have nothing against Dan at all it just sounds like a lot of the posts just belittle aikidoka.

But I think that the problem some people have with Dan and Mark is that they give no "How To's" and claim IHTBF (Reasonable) and Dan also does not want to give to much verbal info because he does not want the unskilled boobs to sound like the know stuff (can't remember were that post is). So the only thing that seems to come out into the posts sounds like "nobody in aikido understands aikido and everybody that does Aikido sucks unless they train with Dan."

Now they may or may not think that who knows, but it sure does seem like it from the posts.
Otherwise, IMHO what they are doing is essential for great aikido or any other movement activity you chose to do.

Best,
Eric

Ouch!!
I'm not saying that Eric.I would rather this material drew us together rather than divide us. It is drawing many communities of martial artists together in person, better than any other method I have seen. I wish the same could happen on the internet.

If you want to sum up my points they would read like this:

Aikido is part Martial art, part spiritual pursuit.

I say that Ueshiba's skills were not unique, but were part of a known paradigm of internal training replete with concepts and specific terminology quoted and cited by Ueshiba. Ueshiba utilized this internal training paradigm for his power and aiki and that it was this known physical process that produced other men with unusual power, that produced what we saw as his unusual power in Aikido.

Ueshiba's terminology, properly translated are known concepts that produce power and aiki. I can define them, teach them, do them, and have produced students who can as well.

Those who claim his power was made manifest by his spiritual pursuits have yet to produce anyone anywhere doing anything defined and replicable to produce his power.

Of those Japanese teachers who had/have power; the teaching method lacked clarity and thus they did not produce students with unusual power.

This is where I disagree with those who argue there is no case:
Ueshiba had unusual power(Those making this case have unusual power)
He used the same terminology and phrases that exist throughout Asia.
He actually borrowed and directly quoted many internal arts sayings in his writings.
The terminology he used were methods that were known for producing power
Those used them in India/China/Ancient Japan; were also known for unusual power
They all share the same tests- litmus tests for power-that he used(Those making this case use the same terminology and explain it and also have unusual power)

In a nut shell:
Those reffuting it?Have no unusual power and cannot explain what Ueshiba was saying, where it cam from, what it means and how to do it to produce power and aiki.

I think not knowing the material is understandable and forgivable.
I think Modern Aikido-ka's distinct lack of power and aiki in the face of those making this argument is rather revealing as they fail almost alarmingly at a 100% rate. It's happening internationally in open rooms. What...does....that....say?

To go back to this notion of circumstantial evidence:
Most jurors at this point would find reasonable cause for conviction, or winning of a civil case on those grounds.

I don't care about having to "make a case." What for?
This is not personal to me, and I am not trying to win anything. I am trying to help people over a set period of time I have available to me. What the community does with it is up to them. I would rather this material drew us together rather than divide us.
I think Aikido was once one of the most powerful arts in the world. I do not believe it still is. From my own exposure to so many of its higher level teachers, to reading just about everything in English, to reading, and meeting people over decades, I have come to realize most of you agree with me that Aikido has problems when it comes to living up to the martial reputation it's founder once had.
I think-we- can fix that and have lots of fun doing so.
Dan

Ouch!!
I'm not saying that Eric.I would rather this material drew us together rather than divide us. It is drawing many communities of martial artists together in person, better than any other method I have seen. I wish the same could happen on the internet.

If you want to sum up my points they would read like this:

Aikido is part Martial art, part spiritual pursuit.

I say that Ueshiba's skills were not unique, but were part of a known paradigm of internal training replete with concepts and specific terminology quoted and cited by Ueshiba. Ueshiba utilized this internal training paradigm for his power and aiki and that it was this known physical process that produced other men with unusual power, that produced what we saw as his unusual power in Aikido.

Ueshiba's terminology, properly translated are known concepts that produce power and aiki. I can define them, teach them, do them, and have produced students who can as well.

Those who claim his power was made manifest by his spiritual pursuits have yet to produce anyone anywhere doing anything defined and replicable to produce his power.

Of those Japanese teachers who had/have power; the teaching method lacked clarity and thus they did not produce students with unusual power.

This is where I disagree with those who argue there is no case:
Ueshiba had unusual power(Those making this case have unusual power)
He used the same terminology and phrases that exist throughout Asia.
He actually borrowed and directly quoted many internal arts sayings in his writings.
The terminology he used were methods that were known for producing power
Those used them in India/China/Ancient Japan; were also known for unusual power
They all share the same tests- litmus tests for power-that he used(Those making this case use the same terminology and explain it and also have unusual power)

In a nut shell:
Those reffuting it?Have no unusual power and cannot explain what Ueshiba was saying, where it cam from, what it means and how to do it to produce power and aiki.

I think not knowing the material is understandable and forgivable.
I think Modern Aikido-ka's distinct lack of power and aiki in the face of those making this argument is rather revealing as they fail almost alarmingly at a 100% rate. It's happening internationally in open rooms. What...does....that....say?

To go back to this notion of circumstantial evidence:
Most jurors at this point would find reasonable cause for conviction, or winning of a civil case on those grounds.

I don't care about having to "make a case." What for?
This is not personal to me, and I am not trying to win anything. I am trying to help people over a set period of time I have available to me. What the community does with it is up to them. I would rather this material drew us together rather than divide us.
I think Aikido was once one of the most powerful arts in the world. I do not believe it still is. From my own exposure to so many of its higher level teachers, to reading just about everything in English, to reading, and meeting people over decades, I have come to realize most of you agree with me that Aikido has problems when it comes to living up to the martial reputation it's founder once had.
I think-we- can fix that and have lots of fun doing so.
Dan

Folks:

Please note that Stanley's criticism of "modern Aikido" is similar to Dan's...

Ueshiba had unusual power
He used the same terminology and phrases that exist throughout Asia.
He actually borrowed and directly quoted many internal arts sayings in his writings.
The terminology he used were methods that were known for producing power
Those used them in India/China/Ancient Japan; were also known for unusual power
They all share the same tests- litmus tests for power-that he used

These are all things that can be proven or disproved. But the only way you can do one or the other is by going through a rigorous scholarly process of writing, publishing, and having your work peer reviewed. Not by martial artists, by historians who work in fields adjacent to this line of research. Until that is done this is all a matter of personal belief. There is nothing wrong with personal belief as long as you aren't passing it off as the truth. At best you look like a passionate eccentric when you do that, and at worse you wind up taking advantage of mentally susceptible people, e.g. people who have a tough time differentiating belief from fact, or differentiating knowing how from knowing that.

These are all things that can be proven or disproved. But the only way you can do one or the other is by going through a rigorous scholarly process of writing, publishing, and having your work peer reviewed. Not by martial artists, by historians who work in fields adjacent to this line of research. Until that is done this is all a matter of personal belief. There is nothing wrong with personal belief as long as you aren't passing it off as the truth. At best you look like a passionate eccentric when you do that, and at worse you wind up taking advantage of mentally susceptible people, e.g. people who have a tough time differentiating belief from fact, or differentiating knowing how from knowing that.

But that applies to everything in Aikido today, since none of it has gone through an academic peer review process, including the statements by direct students of Ueshiba - many of which are contradictory.

Are you saying that people like Mitsugi Saotome, who certainly make declarative statements about Ueshiba, "look like a passionate eccentric" and are "taking advantage of mentally susceptible people"?

I know a lot of the folks that train with Dan - and they're not a mentally susceptible group of idiots who are being taken advantage of - I don't even see myself that way, although my wife might .

But that applies to everything in Aikido today, since none of it has gone through an academic peer review process, including the statements by direct students of Ueshiba - many of which are contradictory.

But some of "it" has been handed down through the teacher-student interaction. This by itself doesn't guarantee quality or fidelity of the material passed (to say the least) but you do know the provenance.

Personally I would have liked to see something like academic peer reviewed evaluation applied on the inherited "it" but I am not holding my breath. If you bring fresh "it" from the outside the system however, well - then the burden of proof is on you.

But some of "it" has been handed down through the teacher-student interaction. This by itself doesn't guarantee quality or fidelity of the material passed (to say the least) but you do know the provenance.

Personally I would have liked to see something like academic peer reviewed evaluation applied on the inherited "it" but I am not holding my breath. If you bring fresh "it" from the outside the system however, well - then the burden of proof is on you.

There is no fresh "it" - it all comes from recognizable sources, and Dan has said that himself in the past.

It's also not from outside the system - unless you artificially limit the system to a particular politically organized structure.

But that applies to everything in Aikido today, since none of it has gone through an academic peer review process, including the statements by direct students of Ueshiba - many of which are contradictory.

Are you saying that people like Mitsugi Saotome, who certainly make declarative statements about Ueshiba, "look like a passionate eccentric" and are "taking advantage of mentally susceptible people"?

I know a lot of the folks that train with Dan - and they're not a mentally susceptible group of idiots who are being taken advantage of - I don't even see myself that way, although my wife might .

Best,

Chris

Yeah that came out wrong. I was referring more to the highly intelligent, hard working sort of susceptible but that's still a pretty dick thing to throw out. Sorry for the rudeness.

There is no fresh "it" - it all comes from recognizable sources, and Dan has said that himself in the past.

It's also not from outside the system - unless you artificially limit the system to a particular politically organized structure.

Not sure what politics you are thinking of, here is an example of what I have in mind:

All my direct teachers are students of Saito Morihiro who was a student of the Founder.
The Founder was very particular about the hanmi, Saito Morihiro was particular about the hanmi. My direct teachers are particular about the hanmi.

When Dan says that hanmi makes no sense in his method and that his method is the same one the Founder had, than this comes from outside the system and requires a proof.

Not sure what politics you are thinking of, here is an example of what I have in mind:

All my direct teachers are students of Saito Morihiro who was a student of the Founder.
The Founder was very particular about the hanmi, Saito Morihiro was particular about the hanmi. My direct teachers are particular about the hanmi.

When Dan says that hanmi makes no sense in his method and that his method is the same one the Founder had, than this comes from outside the system and requires a proof.

David:

Chris Li has already pointed out that the "translation" that John Stevens rendered from O'Sensei's writings was not accurate. A more accurate translation was provided which actually supported the position that Dan put forward. Another interesting question is why Saito Sensei did not publicly correct this translation? Or why Saito Sensei did not work off of the more accurate description (six directional awareness) when he was teaching particular stances?

Not sure what politics you are thinking of, here is an example of what I have in mind:

All my direct teachers are students of Saito Morihiro who was a student of the Founder.
The Founder was very particular about the hanmi, Saito Morihiro was particular about the hanmi. My direct teachers are particular about the hanmi.

When Dan says that hanmi makes no sense in his method and that his method is the same one the Founder had, than this comes from outside the system and requires a proof.

Put it this way - Morihei Ueshiba deplored counting the steps in a jo kata.

Morihiro Saito stated this himself and stated that he would be scolded if found counting out the steps in a jo kata.

Morihiro Saito taught the jo kata while counting out the steps.

Doesn't that mean that Saito was teaching things from outside the system?

Morihei Ueshiba taught a lot of people, and those people ended up expressing things in various different ways.

If you're saying that the way that the particular way Saito expressed things is the only legitimate expression within the system then I think that you're in for a lot of arguments.

Personally, I think that you're getting too caught up in the exact outer expression of the physical movement - something that both Morihei Ueshiba and Sokaku Takeda specifically spoke against.

Even Gozo Shioda spoke against it, and few styles are as strictly patterned as the Yoshinkan.

Chris Li has already pointed out that the "translation" that John Stevens rendered from O'Sensei's writings was not accurate. A more accurate translation was provided which actually supported the position that Dan put forward. Another interesting question is why Saito Sensei did not publicly correct this translation? Or why Saito Sensei did not work off of the more accurate description (six directional awareness) when he was teaching particular stances?

Regards,

Marc Abrams

In Saito's commentary to "Budo" he correctly notes that O-Sensei used "six-directions" and not "hanmi" or "60 degrees", but he speculates that this is because O-Sensei did not use the term "hanmi" at that time budo was written (for some reason unspecified by Saito).

My personal hunch is that it's one of those things that O-Sensei dropped because nobody understood what he was talking about and he didn't care to explain - for all that he broke with Takeda it seems to me that he was somewhat cagey about stating some things explicitly in clear language. Many times it seems that he expected (or wanted to see) people following the hints he dropped - also a common traditional tactic. "Stealing the techniques", in other words.

Chris Li has already pointed out that the "translation" that John Stevens rendered from O'Sensei's writings was not accurate. A more accurate translation was provided which actually supported the position that Dan put forward.

What do you mean by "already", I have no problem with either of the translations really.

Quote:

Another interesting question is why Saito Sensei did not publicly correct this translation?

What you mean by "Another"? My guess is that Saito Morihiro was happy with the Japanese original and never read Stevens.

Quote:

Or why Saito Sensei did not work off of the more accurate description (six directional awareness) when he was teaching particular stances?

I can't tell how things look like when you "open your legs in six directions" but have a look here how it looked when the Founder did it (assuming he was following his own advice): http://www.aikidosangenkai.org/blog/...budo-and-kamae . Regarding Saito Sensei not being accurate, well, the man made his life's mission to transmit the Founder's Aikido as accurately as possible so you may be a bit hasty in your assessment of his teaching.